Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor believed that regulations should be different for established neighborhoods. She thought 4,500 square foot lots were very small, particularly in established neighborhoods. She did not think flag lots should be permitted, pointing out that structures on such sites could be 30 feet higher than neighboring one- story structures. She said she had seen one such development ruin four backyards. It lowered property values and affected people’s peace of mind. The situation was worse when the development was on a hill. Ms. Taylor said that building height should depend on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said he did not interpret GMS Policy 6 as implying increased densities happened only in new neighborhoods. He interpreted it as applying to new development anywhere in the community. He asked if there was any legislative history or intent the council could examine. Mr. Kelly agreed that inappropriate infill was occurring in the community, although he acknowledged people had different ideas about what constituted inappropriate infill. He liked the idea of addressing the issue through a combination of opportunity siting and density allocation. He said that opportunity siting could direct infill where it was appropriate, and combined with the density allocation, would make sure that everyone had a place to live in the future. He suggested that another place to address the issue would be through design standards, such as the design standards associated with multi-family development. The alternative path could be another approach. Mr. Kelly noted that there were currently no single-family design standards, although the council had spent considerable time discussing such residential design standards when it approved the Chambers Area Revisited Project. He suggested the council consider those standards when it considered infill issues in the future. Mr. Pryor said he thought progress was being made. He thought the City should do more of what it had done in the Chambers area to work with the neighbors while still maintaining its density goals. He agreed the council would have differing definitions on what inappropriate infill is, and that could be addressed as code revision opportunities came up. Mr. Papé said he also encountered the issue cited by Ms. Taylor. He hoped there was a way to get at the problem, such as through a zoning overlay. He asked how the City could make GMS Policy 6 work, given that the council wanted to increase residential densities throughout the community. Mayor Piercy said the problem for her was the notion of trying to be sensitive to individual neighborhoods and situations in neighborhoods while still having clear rules for people to live by. That conflict was a tough one. She understood the sensitivity issue, but she also understood that people planned their lives in accordance with City rules. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. Ms. Taylor said the Chambers node was a good example of what could be accomplished, but she did not think the City could expect similar initiatives from other neighborhoods. She thought the issue was urgent because of the increased development that was occurring. She thought the height of driveways in flag lots needed to be addressed because people were building infill developments and raising the driveway four to five feet higher than the land, and then the driveway passed by someone’s back yard. The location of windows in buildings in proximity to each other was an issue. Ms. Taylor said that obstruction of views was another complaint she frequently heard. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that design standards were needed and that action was urgent. The City should protect those already in their homes as opposed to those who had not arrived yet. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor that such development was happening and it was occurring everywhere. Regarding the Chambers experience, he agreed that the City could not expect to see many such initiatives MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session